REVISION OF PROPORTIONAL VOTING SYSTEM

§
17.—(1) If it appears to the Secretary of State that an instrument made by the welsh Assembly under the Provisions of section 2
595
of this Act would not be in the interests of the United Kingdom as a whole he may by order revoke the instrument and any such order may contain such consequential provisions as appear to him to be necessary or expedient.

§
(2) An order under sub-paragraph (1) of this paragraph revoking an instrument shall be subject to the same limitations and procedures as are contained under section 36 of this Act.'.

§
No. 35 in page 3, line 38, at end insert—
'(5) Subject to subsection (4) of this section where the seat of an additional member of an Assembly is vacated the vacancy shall be filled by the first willing candidate of the party of the vacating member on the relevant party priority list as prepared at the preceding ordinary election under the provisions of Part V of Schedule 1 to this Act such candidate not already being a member and having indicated his willingness to fill the vacancy as required by the standing orders of the Assembly.'.

We now have just one hour in which to have a debate on proportional representation. I shall try to set a spanking pace so that there will be as much time as possible for other hon. Members to contribute to the debate.

This amendment is the first of a series of interrelated amendments to provide that the first elections to the Assembly should be held under a system of PR. The sponsors of this amendment are drawn from all the parties concerned with the Wales Bill and, in addition, represent the two camps with regard to the Bill—that is to say, those who support the Bill and those who oppose it.

My hon. Friend the Member for Barry (Sir R. Gower) and I are strong opponents of the Bill, but other hon. Members who have put their names to the amendment are strong supporters of it. The amendment was to have been moved by the hon. Member for Wrexham (Mr. Ellis), but, as a Member of the European Parliament, he is unable to be present. That is why I am carrying out this job.

I reiterate that I am a strong opponent of the measure. But, if we are to have an Assembly, clearly it must do the job that it is elected to do. As I read the Bill, the prime function of the Assembly is to carry out certain executive activities through a complicated structure of committees. Fruthermore, it is expressly provided in the Bill that those commit-
596
tees should be multi-party committees—as it were, power-sharing executives. Because of that, it seems to me that the case for PR of some sort is stronger and more incontrovertible in the case of the Wales Bill than it was with regard to the Scotland Bill and perhaps as strong as it was in the case of the European Assembly Elections Bill.

We must bear in mind that the strongest arguments adduced by the opponents of PR—namely, that it does not produce a clear-cut majority for one party, and that a majority for one party is essential to sustain single-party government and single-party responsibility—are simply not applicable to the Wales Bill.

Furthermore, there is an additional powerful argument in the political makeup of Wales for introducing PR into elections for the Assembly. In Wales we traditionally have one very large party and three smaller parties. There is, therefore, the constant risk of distortion if the first-past-the-post system is applied. It will come as no surprise to hon. Members that the present system of first past the post exaggerates Labour dominance in Wales.

I take only the example of the October 1974 General Election, in which the Labour Party got 49 per cent. of the votes but 66 per cent. of the seats. In the long run, that cannot be healthy for the Labour Party. I am glad that the hon. Member for Wrexham had the courage to support this amendment. Being a man of far sight, he recognised the unhealthiness of that situation for the Labour Party It is much more obvious that this is not a healthy situation for the other three parties, which, naturally, do not like it.

I am glad that it has fallen to me rather than to any of my co-sponsors to introduce the amendment, because as a Conservative I can be acquitted of any bias whatever. It so happened that in the October 1974 General Election the Conservative Party got 19 per cent. of the seats but secured 24 per cent. of the votes. If that result were transposed in order to calculate the number of seats which the Conservative Party would have won in an Assembly election—under a first-past-the-post system as set out under the Bill—the extraordinarily neat result comes up that the Conservative Party with 24 per cent. of the votes would have got 23.9 per cent. of the seats. Therefore, with regard to
597
the October 1974 figures—which are reasonably representative for Wales—the Conservative attitude is a disinterested one.

I am asking for a system of proportional representation because it would be fairer. As far as the Welsh Assembly is concerned, fairness is more important than producing a clear majority, because one of the primary functions of the Assembly is to reflect the balance of political opinion in Wales.

I am also asking for a particular form of PR. This amendment coincides with an amendment tabled by the hon. Member for Pontypool (Mr. Abse), who wants a different form of PR. I am asking for the additional Member system, which has certain special advantages.

The system retains the existing constituencies. It is fairly common ground among hon. Members on both sides of the argument and on both sides of the Committee that there is great value in the link between the constituency and its Member, whether this applies to the Westminster Parliament or to the Welsh Assembly. The additional Member system also could be introduced without any delay because it does not entail the redrawing of boundaries or the regrouping of constituencies.

There is another point in its favour. I do not wish to make too much of this because the hon. Member for Berwick and East Lothian (Mr. Mackintosh) made a lot of it on the Scotland Bill. The system enables people who have great political, practical, scientific or technical expertise to contribute to become Members of the Assembly even though they do not have the special talents qualifying them to stand for election as constituency Members. I do not intend to make too much of this or I shall hear cries of "Elitism" from Labour Members. But there is merit in allowing people of that calibre to participate in the Assembly.

The principle of the additional Member system as applied to Wales in this series of amendments would be that at the first election to the Assembly, 50 Members would be elected by the first-past-the-post system. Thirty-six of these would be from the existing 36 constituencies—one Member for each constituency. In addition, them would be 14 constituency Members from the 14 largest con-
598
stituencies, defined in the amendment as those whose electorate is 113 per cent. of the electoral quota of the United Kingdom. That gives 50 constituency Members on the first-past-the-post system as proposed under the Bill.

Those Members would be topped up by an additional 25 Members allocated to parties in such a way as to give proportional representation as nearly as possible. The 25 additional Members would be drawn from a list to be published by each party at the election. The list of additional Members preferred by each party would be put on each elector's ballot paper. Each voter would have two votes—one for a constituency candidate and one for a candidate from the party lists.

In voting for candidates on the party list, the voter would have a ballot paper with a complete list of the candidates in order of preference determined by the party. Before I hear great cries of "Party machines imposing their bureaucratic views on the electorate" from Labour Members, they should bear in mind that the parties will be seeking votes in this way and will arrange their lists in such a way as to attract the votes of the electors. They will also arrange it in such a way as to put the most electorally attractive candidates at the top of the list. It gives electors a real choice.

Provision is made for a cut-off. A political party would have to poll 5 per cent. of the total votes cast in all the elections for the Assembly in order to qualify to have even one Member picked from the list. This would eliminate parties which are strong locally but have no strength throughout the Principality, and it would suffice to eliminate local freak parties.

The elector would be free to vote for a candidate he liked personally and, at the same time, for a different political party. I am sure that every hon. Member is more popular than the party he represents and can therefore feel confident that, if lie offered himself for election, he would undoubtedly be returned.

The system would be fair and workable, and the case for proportional representation is overwhelming. The case for PR in the European Assembly elections was incontrovertible so that we could show our European partners that we were conducting absolutely fair elections. For
599
the Welsh Assembly, the practical arguments in favour of PR are extraordinarily strong.

We are aiming to produce an Assembly which reflects the balance of political
600
forces in Wales. Out of it will come executive committees which are expressly designed to be power-sharing committees. I cannot see how any argument can be sustained against an election system that would produce precisely that result.

Order. I must put the hon. Gentleman right. He cannot move his amendment. He must speak to the amendment that we are discussing, though he may make incidental reference to his own amendment. Subject to the provisions of the timetable resolution, the hon. Gentleman may move his amendment formally when it is reached.

On a point of order, Mr. Murton. While it is right that the hon. Member for Pontypool (Mr. Abse) cannot move his amendment, surely he can make more than just incidential references to it. His amendment is linked with others in the group, and he can address himself totally to his own amendment.

An unhappy situation has arisen in which, by coincidence, various hon. Members have put down the same amendment within entirely different goals. I have two amendments in this group. One provides that in areas where the electorate is more than 125 per cent. of the electoral quota there should be two initial Members instead of the three proposed in the Bill, and the other provides that, instead of two initial Members for each of the other areas, there should be one. They have nothing to do with the contribution of the hon. Member for Flint, West (Sir A. Meyer), and, in order to avoid confusion, I shall try to direct the attention of the Committee to my amendments which seek to reduce the number of Members of the Assembly.

I observe that the hon. Member for Flint, West has obtained the support of
602
Plaid Cymru. I note that there is an intention to alter the rules as we go along. There is a clear and unequivocal wish that we ensure that the manner in which the Assembly is elected is fundamentally altered. To that proposition Plaid Cymru gives its full approval. I trust that all the cries of anguish that have come from Plaid Cymru in claiming that the rules of the game are being changed in respect of the demand that there should be a vote in favour of 40 per cent. and that fundamental changes are taking place will be heard no longer.

It seems that Plaid Cymru Members are using their parliamentary right to change the rules. I do not object. They are behaving as parliamentarians, and they have every right to do so. However, they must no longer peddle the story around Wales that anyone else who does that is worthy of condemnation. Beyond that, I prefer not to pursue the argument. I am sure that there are hon. Members who will meet the views that have been put forward by the hon. Member for Flint, West.

I am concerned with the numbers that will be elected, but I am concerned primarily to get on with establishing a fact that the people of Wales have for a long time been wishing to learn. It is not surprising that when an Assembly is canvassed the people of Wales want to know how many Members will go into it and how much it will cost. It is a simple question, and as yet we have had only part of the reply.

We know from the Explanatory and Financial Memorandum which accompanies the Bill that about £3 million in respect of salaries and related costs of Members of the Assembly is to be spent. Although I say that I am literate, I am barely numerate. However, even I can work out how much Wales will pay per Member in order to have the Assembly. If we divide £3 million by 80, it means that Wales will pay £37,500 a year so that it shall have each glorious Assembly Member. That is something that the Welsh people should understand.

There is some restlessness in Wales about that sum. Wales is entitled to know how it is broken down. Before we decide how many Members the Assembly shall have, we want to know the salary that is to be paid to each Assemblyman. Is it to
603
be £10,000, £15,000 or £3,000? Obviously, the Government have in mind the sum that an Assembly Member is to be paid, but the House of Commons is entitled to know and Wales is entitled to know, in view of the eagerness of some to go to the Assembly, the basis on which the Secretary of State has worked it out.

It seems that £37,500 is a large sum. I am sure that it will be regarded as an onerous figure per Assemblyman. How much of that sum is for support? It is described in the Explanatory and Financial Memorandum as being
in respect of salaries and related costs … and in respect of services for the Assembly
Does that include secretaries and research workers? What does it include? Obviously, a sum has been calculated.

We in the House of Commons cannot be expected to agree to a number such as 80 being represented in the Assembly, bearing in mind the cost falling on the taxpayers of Wales and bearing in mind also that the money will come out of a sum which might otherwise have gone into social services, hospitals or anything else. We are entitled to have an exact breakdown and to know what types of services are to be rendered to these Assemblymen. Are they austere in the mind of the Government, or are they luxurious?

We are paticularly concerned, because we know that this is only a beginning. The people of Wales must understand that what is proposed in the Bill, according to the Government, is not only that it should cost £37,500 per Assemblyman per year but, more than that, that the Assembly is to be entitled, without reference to the House of Commons or to anybody, to determine the salaries of the Assemblymen. Initially the Secretary of State is to decide the matter, and his view is that it will cost £37,500 per Assemblyman. That, however, is only a beginning. The people of Wales must understand that the Bill gives power to the Assembly to decide these salaries.

I am sure that there is not a miner, there is not a steel worker, there is not a nylon worker and there is not a worker of any sort in Wales who would not look with envy at these Assemblymen who are to be endowed with such extraordinary advantages and to be given such extraordinary opportunities that, without any
604
control whatsoever, they can vote whatever they like.

If it is suggested that the check will be when the elections come, I recall that I have been in the House of Commons for 20 years and that, given a General Election within the year, I shall have taken part in eight General Elections. We as Members of the House regularly face the electorate. But, according to the Bill, after these cosseted Assemblymen have been elected they will remain in the Assembly for four years. They could raise their salaries in the first week after their election, and it would be four years before the next election took place.

I am bound to say that when the people of Wales rumble, as they soon will, what is taking place, they will be very pleased that I, with the help of my hon. Friends the Members for Bedwellty (Mr. Kinnock), for Caerphilly (Mr. Evans) and for Aberdare (Mr. Evans), have urged that the number of representatives should be reduced in a bid to reduce the cost.

My first point, therefore, is that we should let the people of Wales know that a blank cheque is being given to these untried and untested Assemblymen. Let the people of Wales, recognise that some of the enthusiasm, marginal as it may be, which comes from small sections of opinion in Wales comes from people who, certainly in private, do not mask their desire and, indeed, their intention to seek election to the Assembly. Indeed, as I think my hon. Friend the Member for Bedwellty put it, certain people seem to have a veritable obsession about the Assembly and their desire to participate in what is deemed to be a democratic Assembly.

When I see the Plaid Cymru Members nodding their heads, I not merely wonder but expect that they are eager to take their places in the Assembly when it is formed. I do not doubt that it is regarded by them as a very attractive proposition, although it could be a very onerous burden on the people of Wales.

I want next to deal with the idea that there should be dual representation for each constituency. I wonder what an hon. Member here would think if he found himself in the position, as used to be the case in certain constituencies, of having to share responsibility with another hon. Member. A constituency could be
605
represented not by one Member alone but by others, not necessarily from the same party. As the Bill stands, many constituencies could have three Members, each one of whom could represent a different party. Is there anything more likely than this to cause democracy to be discredited? Representatives, in a veritable cacophony, could put forward diverse views which would bewilder the Assembly because they would all claim to represent their constituencies. The whole situation is ludicrous.

The matter does not end there. What could easily happen is that I or any other hon. Member might represent his constituency in the House and belong to one party, and three Members from three other parties could represent that same constituency in the Assembly. One has only to contemplate the position to see how absurd it is. It is necessary to attempt to ensure that one Member represents one constituency. I simply put the facts before the Committee. The hour is late, and the absurdity of the situation need not be emphasised to experienced parliamentarians because they know the impossibility of the situation which would arise.

Who would write to the Minister to seek his aid? Would one of the Assemblymen write to him and another write in a contradictory manner? Who would pursue the problems which could arise, for example, in the health services? Would one Member write to the hospital management committee demanding one thing and another Member write wanting something else? I can see the position that would arise throughout the administrative structure in Wales if we permitted more than one Member for each constituency.

Surely the hon. Member is aware of the existence of the area health authorities, which already double up on the duties of Members of Parliament. There is already a double scrutiny. The hon. Member's model of a democracy with different representatives from different political parties is the ultimate in democratic achievement.

If an area health authority received a letter from one Assemblyman asking for a geriatric unit to be established in hospital A and another Assemblyman wrote saying that in no
606
circumstances should that be done, a farce would be made of the democratic process. It would be an intolerable burden on permanent officials throughout Wales. They would be bewildered. They would be pushed and pulled in all directions. It would be totally unfair to the administrators of Wales.

May I introduce the hon. Member for Merioneth (Mr. Thomas) to an entirely novel governmental concept which has not been experienced by him, myself, my hon. Friend the Member for Pontypool (Mr. Abse) or anyone in the history of the world? That concept is called "Divide and rule".

Now we are to institutionalise that concept. This is what the scheme involves. It is ludicrous. We are entitled to know what thought has been given to this possibility.

If we had a PR system, the aim of which seems to be to achieve a so-called balance, it is far more likely that it would achieve a diversity of political views. It would be more likely that there would be three people with entirely different political philosophies and different approaches to the administration in Wales representing one constituency.

I trust, therefore, that we shall get a reply. What is to be the salary according to my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State? What check will there be that these Assemblymen do not vote whatever they like, as they would be able to do under the Bill as it stands at present? What is he to do to prevent the obvious confusions that will arise in the administration of Wales? These are simple questions, but I doubt whether the answers will be quite as simple.

Since I was diagonally opposite the hon. Gentleman, I moved it to safety in case the same fate should befall it.

607
The object of these amendments is to change the electoral system to make it fairer and more acceptable. I am particularly concerned at the Government's reactions to them for one reason. If the Government intend to win the referendum in Wales, it is very important that they should come up with an electoral system that is fairer and a more accurate reflection on the electorate than the present one.

The system proposed, though it is not everyone's ideal—I do not think that it is everybody's first choice—is a proportional representation system that is tried and proven. It is workable. It is the West German added-Member system which is virtually adapted to our circumstances and is supported by hon. Members in all parties in the House. It would preserve constituencies with one or two Members. It would allow proportionality to be taken into account, and in the 22 constituencies where single Members are proposed it would allow a preferential vote as well. Instead of there being 75 constituency Members, there would be 50 elected constituency Members and 25 additional Members. It is important to remember that the Kilbrandon Commission was unanimous on only one point—that there should be proportional representation in the elections to the Assemblies.

It is worth recollecting that under the first-past-the-post system Conservative Members have been expressing a fear of what the nationalists might do at the Assembly, that they might use it for their own purposes. They should bear in mind that in the Quebec provincial election under the first-past-the-post system the nationalist party secured 41 per cent. of the votes but 70 per cent. of the seats.

If the Conservatives want to build into the legislation the danger of the nationalists in Wales taking hold of the Assembly, they should maintain their support for the first-past-the-post system. Some more enlightened Conservatives have come round to the idea that it is better and safer to have a proportional system.

I want to try to enlist the support of the Government for these amendments. The proportional electoral system, if adopted for the Assembly, will materially affect the view of a considerable number of people who might otherwise vote
608
against it on the referendum. It is important to remember, for example, that at the October 1974 General Election the Labour Party polled 49.5 per cent. of the votes in Wales and had 23 seats. The Conservative Party polled 23.9 per cent. and had eight seats. The Liberals polled 15.5 per cent. and had two seats, and Plaid Cymru polled 10.7 per cent. and had three seats. The whole picture was distorted.

If we adopted the system proposed in the amendments, everyone would have virtually the same proportion of seats as of the votes cast. That would be a much fairer and more accurate reflection of Welsh public opinion.

I must come now to what I think is a very important consideration. In the Welsh Grand Committee, the hon. Member for Pontypool and I had an altercation on this subject. He then used what I consider to be the most effective argument, though not the most valid, against devolution, one that in my experience worries most people—the fear that the Welsh Assembly will be dominated by one party and will invite corruption.

The fear is that the Assembly will be dominated by the Labour Party—not by the Labour Party as represented here, but by the local government element in the Labour Party. Anyone who knows anything about Wales knows that the Achilles' heel of the Labour Party in Wales has been its local government, and I want to recall what the hon. Member for Pontypool said in the Welsh Grand Committee after I had interjected.

The hon. Member said:
I believe, of course, that corruption in decision-making is a major issue throughout the world at this moment … There is nothing indigenous to Wales on this matter. But we have to accept the particular vulnerability of a small community where kinship, friendship and familial ties already play a part as social lubricants … friendliness can wander too easily over the line where the disinterested favour becomes the corrupt act."—[Official Report, Welsh Grand Committee, 25th January 1978; c. 65.]
In articulating it as he did, the hon. Gentleman did a service, because he brought out from under the carpet what I consider to be the most effective argument in the minds of the electorate against the proposed Assembly for Wales.

The Government have to consider this matter very carefully. More than 50 per
609
cent. of the voters in Wales voted not for the Labour Party but for the Conservative Party, the Liberal Party or Plaid Cymru. It is important, if there is to be a successful referendum in Wales, that a fair proportion of the supporters of those parties support it. I believe that the supporters of those parties support it. I believe that the system we now propose is the fairest that can be devised, with all-party support, at the moment.

I think that the argument used by the hon. Member for Pontypool is not valid. As I said in the Welsh Grand Committee, we have dealt with corruption charges here in the House of Commons, and there have been times in the history of the country when there has been a great deal of corruption here. But there is certainly emotional support for the hon. Gentleman's views from the spate of recent trials in South Wales for corruption in local government.

It is, therefore, very important that the Government should appreciate the force of our argument. They must ask themselves how, if they are to carry 40 per cent. of the electorate in the referendum, they are to meet this task. The threat of likely corruption is a forceful and effective argument. I say to all those in favour of devolution that this is a nettle that must be grasped, and grasped early on, if we are to have any hope of carrying a referendum on this subject.

If the referendum is to succeed, surely its chances of success would be enormously enhanced if the Government appreciated that if there were a proportional representation system the people of Wales would feel reassured. They would feel reassured that they would not necessarily be dominated by one party. There is a general belief that corruption is more likely to exist where there is continued domination by one party on a strict party basis.

Labour Members in Wales often fight elections in difficult circumstances, because they must sometimes carry burdens imposed upon them by what has been a sorry chapter in the history of local government in parts of Wales.

I am sure that the hon. and learned Gentleman is not drawing from what I said the inference that the frail members of the community are confined to any one party. I do not wish to give a
610
catalogue of the sinners, but he and I know enough of those who have faced the courts to know that the problem about which I was talking is not particular to the majority party but has affected people in all parties. I trust, therefore, that the hon. and learned Gentleman is not trying to draw so sinister an inference.

The hon. Gentleman has been making sinister use of this argument. That was why I interrupted him in the Welsh Grand Committee. I asked him to spell out exactly what he meant, and he did so only after my interruptions.

It is very important that the matter should be dealt with. Of course, nobody can suggest that corruption is ever confined to one party. All I say is that, in view of the history of Wales, it is important for the Government to appreciate that this matter worries people who are otherwise in favour of devolution. If the Government want to win the referendum, they must think deeply on this matter

It may be right for me to intervene now. I want to give an opportunity for at least one other Member to catch the eye of the Chair before the debate ends.

It is a pity that we have not had more time—[Hon. Members: "Hear, hear."] We all know where the responsibility lies. Hours were taken up in a non-debate this afternoon, after the Government had given a clear indication of their intentions. It does not lie in the mouths of those who took up so much time with long speeches on a non-event to say that they want more time. Therefore, I very much regret—

The Government's view is clear. There are two main strands in the amendments, the first dealing with the form of proportional representation and the other with the size of the Assembly.

The Government are opposed to proportional representation, but it will be for each hon. Member to make up his or her mind, as in the past. The first-past-the-post system is well tried in this country. It is well known and understood, and I believe that it works reasonably
611
well. We are setting up a new system of administration with a new Executive, and there will be a great need for good will and understanding. To add an additional problem or hazard, call it what one will, of explaining what would be an entirely new system in this island would not help the system and its future working.

10.45 p.m.

Of course, like the mansions in the House of the Lord, there are many systems of PR, and the additional-Member system is but one of them.

The hon. Member knows perfectly well that we were dealing with a quite novel system there—[Hon. Members: "Oh."]—for neither a legislative nor an executive form of government. We are dealing here with an executive form of government, and people will be expecting decisions to flow from the Welsh Assembly that will affect, day in and day out, their daily lives. We were dealing with an entirely different animal in our discussions on the European Assembly Elections Bill.

I have listened to the debate and I want to reply to hon. Members and be courteous to them, otherwise they will be complaining that I have not replied. I cannot win.

I shall seek to show that the particular system of 50 Members directly elected and 25 who would be elected in an entirely different manner is a system that is not known to be working in any part of the
612
world. [Interruption.] That is not the system that is proposed. This is the opportunity that I wanted to show that this is not the precise system now being proposed by the hon. Member for Flint, West (Sir. A. Meyer). I hope that the hon. Member for Surbiton (Sir N. Fisher) has done the courtesy to the hon. Member for Flint, West of indicating that there are differences in the system in the German Länder. They are rather different. I am saying that this precise system is not known to work in any part of the world.

One of the major objects of our proposals is to bring government closer to the people, to ensure that they are represented by those directly elected by them and not by the whole host of nominated bodies which govern us in so many of our activities in Wales. I sense here that one will have certainly directly elected Members, but in addition one will have people who have failed to be elected and who, through this alternative system, will have a second bite at the cherry.

If there are difficulties for Members of Parliament, as mentioned by my hon. Friend the Member for Pontypool (Mr. Abse), how much greater will the difficulties be if there are two forms of Members of the Assembly, those elected by a particular constituency and those who have been rejected by any particular constituency and then find their way into the Assembly? Life will be very difficult indeed for the proper, directly elected Assemblymen, apart from having someone who is answerable to hardly anyone and, as I understand the amendment, has already been rejected in the election.

The system that we are proposing is a system that is well tried, is understood and is the best chance of ensuring that we are able to carry into a new form of administration a system that works in national government in this country, one that has worked over the years and works in our system of local government.

I turn to the amendments in the name of my hon. Friend the Member for Pontypool. Of course, there is no absolutely right size for any Assembly. Kilbrandon put forward the number of 100 as the figure that would be proper in all the
613
circumstances. If, however, the system proposed by my hon. Friend were adopted, we would have a very small number of Members—smaller than in many of our local authorities in Wales. Indeed, the system that we are proposing would yield about 79 Members. That is less than the largest county council in Wales, which has a membership of 85.

We believe that the proposed Assembly, with its duty to set up a number of subject committees, needs—I would not tie myself to any absolute figure—a membership substantially in excess of that proposed by my hon. Friend. I believe that somewhere around the 80 mark is about the least that on could have in order to ensure a successful administration, a proper representation of Wales which has due regard to the varying population in different parts of Wales and the manning of the subject committees that the Assembly is obliged to set up.

My hon. Friend asked questions regarding the arithmetic. I can give him the immediate assurance that there is no suggestion of paying an Assemblyman £37,500, which my hon. Friend canvassed from the totality of the amount that will be provided for the whole of the back-up services. It will be the duty of the Secretary of State of the day to fix the initial salary. I believe it is necessary to do that, because the Assemblymen and Wales should know before the first elections what is proposed in the first instance.

Thereafter, it will be for the Assembly itself to fix the salary. I see nothing wrong in that—any more than that it is not wrong for the House of Commons to fix its own salaries—because Assemblymen, like hon. Members of this House of Commons, will be answerable to their electorate. That is a discipline that we all face in the House. We have faced it over the years, and I see nothing wrong in such a proposal.

I assure my hon. Friend the Member for Pontypool that if it is my duty to fix a salary—if I hold the office of Secretary of State for Wales—it will be no greater than the parliamentary salary. That would be my objective. One would have to look at all the circumstances, but if it were my responsibility to fix the initial salary, it would clearly be less than that of a Member of Parliament.

My right hon. and learned Friend claimed that an Assemblyman
614
should have the same salary as a Member of Parliament. Since there will be two Assemblymen for each constituency, and, according to my right hon. and learned Friend's estimation, each of them will do one-quarter of the work done by a Member of Parliament, how does he expect the House of Commons to accept the idea that a parliamentary salary should be given to a man who is doing one-quarter of our work?

I fear that my hon. Friend's hearing is not as good as it was. If he reads Hansard, he will realise that at no stage did I say that the salaries would be the same. I said that the salary would be "no greater". If I have the responsibility of fixing the salary, it will clearly be less. I hope that my hon. Friend will show me courtesy and fairness instead of adopting the absurd and hysterical posture that he has shown tonight.

I shall speak briefly in the few minutes remaining in this debate. As it is St. David's Day, it is particularly appropriate that we should be discussing the question of proportional representation. If he was anything, St. David was an advocate of fair play.

We are talking about the question of fair play in the method of election to the Welsh Assembly. In Wales elections have tended to show a swing to one party, much more so than in the British context. In 1906, there was not one Conservative Member in Wales. All the seats were held by Liberals, except for one Labour seat held by Keir Hardie. In 1966, 22 of the 36 seats were held by Labour Members, even though they held nothing like that proportion of the votes.

One slogan which has been quoted a lot in recent years is:
Power tends to corrupt, and absolute power corrupts absolutely.
To the extent that this question has been raised already in these debates, it behoves us to ensure that the system of election to the Assembly will ensure an effective opposition to the governing party in Wales. Given the characteristics of the Welsh electorate, there is no question but that we should have proportional representation. This will bring no benefits to my party. However, it is a question of fair play. The acceptability of the Assembly in the eyes of the Welsh people means that this is a necessary prerequisite.

615
The hon. Member for Pontypool (Mr. Abse) spoke of changing the rules in the middle of the game. Our objection to the 40 per cent. threshold was not so much to changing the rules in the middle of the game as to the types of rules that had been brought in. We want to avoid the sort of pitfalls that the hon. Member was warning Wales against. We hope, therefore, that he will support us in the Lobby tonight.

By any standards, the Secretary of State has had a bad day. When he accused his hon. Friend the Member for Pontypool (Mr. Abse) of suffering from hysteria, it was a more accurate description of his own speech. He started the day by not being here, which was a mistake. Then he was wrong in his opinion about the debate on the unity of the United Kingdom. Anybody who listened to it would have been aware of the very deep misgivings in the Committee about the whole concept behind the Bill.

These 19 or 20 amendments deal with two quite separate points. The first is the method of election to the Assembly, if ever it is set up. The method proposed by my hon. Friend the Member for Flint, West (Sir A. Meyer) is entirely new. It is known that I have a great deal of personal sympathy with it, but it is utterly wrong to introduce a major change of this kind in the context of a debate of less than an hour under a timetable motion on a Bill. If a change of this kind is introduced, it should be done after a proper debate in which the issue is considered separately and on its merits.

I do not think that it is right to go along with the proposition in subsection (6) of Amendment No. 20, which would allow the Assembly subsequently to change the method of election. We have a free vote on this tonight, but I believe that it is wrong to make a change in the

§
The other major issue which is raised is the size of the Assembly. It is too big as it is now proposed to be constructed. The Secretary of State said that it should have about 80 Members, at least. These, together with the 36 representing Wales in the House of Commons make a total of 116. That is too many. Such an Assembly would be larger than in the case of most of the States of Canada, larger than those of all the States of Australia and larger than Cyprus and Stormont. All of those have full administrative powers, while the Welsh one has not.

§
If we had had the opportunity to vote on it—but, unfortunately, we have not—I would support the amendment tabled by the hon. Member for Pontypool on the ground that it proposes something smaller. The hon. Member referred to the cost of individual Assemblymen. If there were a smaller number, the cost would not necessarily be any less. There would be the same amount of money to go round.

§
As the Secretary of State revealed, it is within the bounds of possibility that, after the initial fixing of salaries, the Assembly may decide to pay Members a substantially increased sum. Let me say now, since there may be no opportunity later, that I believe that the decision on the level of remuneration should remain with the House of Commons.

§It being Eleven o'clock, The CHAIRMAN, proceeded pursuant to the Order [16th November] and the Resolution this day, to put forthwith the Question already proposed from the Chair.